Hoplitai too weak ?

[Maion Maroneios]

I think your problem is that you believe you should use your Hoplitai offensively, which is obviously wrong. I have played quite a few battles on-line, and many times it was my trustworthy Hoplitai that held out long enough for me to hammer the enemy line.

Maion

[A Very Super Market]

Besides, you're using examples form outside EB's timeframe.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Actually i simply tried to act like in the real. And in real hoplitais used brutal shoving match warfare. So they should be offensive warriors but i will try to use them defensivly. A problem is that KH doesnt have any other really good units than hoplitai.

[Watchman]

That was centuries ago when they were mainly fighting each other. Them newfangled pike phalanxes, as it happens, were a *lot* better at the "frontal pushing match" business...

Adapt or perish.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

That was centuries ago when they were mainly fighting each other. Them newfangled pike phalanxes, as it happens, were a *lot* better at the "frontal pushing match" business...

Adapt or perish.

Uhm...Exactly that i wanted to say. The hoplitai was inflexible but still an offensive infantery man. If they hadnt got surrounded they would have been still a very though opponents, and for sure they would have beaten a barbarain horde with axe etc which only charges in the front of the phalanx. But new tactics like the macedonian syntagma rised and so the hoplitai phalanx had got outdated.

Maybe the example was out of the Eb timeframe but there is only one thing which changed if you compare the classcial hoplitais of the pre alexander time with the ones of the post alexander time. And that was the equpiment. The tactics of the classcial hoplitai were still the same and they were still effectiv in a direct combat.

And in MP they are still useless. They cant face against heavy cavalry charges if a human always retreats them and charges again. They cant face against any heavy infantery, it doesnt matter whether naked swordsmen of the gauls or heavy armored pretorian guards and moreover hoplitais are very expensive. Especially KH is very poor on mp. There only really advtanges are there hoplitais but these units cant stand against any other unit, excepted ligth cavalry and infantery.

But thats only in Mp, i didnt played Sp that much, probably in Sp they are quite reliable like you said.


Edit.:

@Mikhail Henkst

Its fact that the macedonian syntagma was way more flexible than a hoplitai phalanx. At least it was in the time of alexander and his father. In this times the phalanx was highly flexible. Phalangits where highly trained and only lightly armored. Each square could turn the directon of their spears tremendously fast in a other direction.

BUT after the dead of alexander the phalangits became unflexible. Mainly there are two reasons. The first is that the successors gave the phalagnits much more armor and the second is that they changed the squares of the phalangits back to more like a line. And such a line of heavy armored warriors is unflexible, they were slow and had been easily outmanvoured. This and the reason that macedonia couldnt rise such a numerous and strong cavalry like in alexander times were the reasons why the romans defeated the macedonians quite fast and easily.

[Watchman]

I, for one, don't give a damn about MP. And even less of how units perform there.

Anyways, straightforward frontall offense with sword or axe ought to have worked against the hoplites just as well or poorly as against any other shieldwall spearmen.
It rather irks me when people seem to assume that merely being Greek and called "hoplite" somehow magically made these guys anything meaningfully different from articulated close-order spearmen the world over.

[lionhard]

people have said that phalanax's in general were out dated but i belive and by simulatuion from EB they were very effective but when you had an enemy of legions or light effective infantry combined with the right cav they were easily wiped out.

[Watchman]

Its fact that the macedonian syntagma was way more flexible than a hoplitai phalanx. At least it was in the time of alexander and his father. In this times the phalanx was highly flexible. Phalangits where highly trained and only lightly armored. Each square could turn the directon of their spears tremendously fast in a other direction.

And this is why the merc hoplites getting into their flanks at the Granicus put the pikemen into such dire straits, right ?

Bollocks.

The fact of the matter is, pikemen are rather cumbersome at the best of times; comes from having to maneuver in very tightly regimented formations with freakin' five-plus meter glagpoles. And quite vulnerable at their flanks; this is why the Medieval ones took to operating in big hollow squares which didn't HAVE vulnerable flanks. The less effective solution the pike phalanxes of Antiquity relied on was maintaining a continuous, unbroken front - with the sub-unit blocks right next to each other, the enemy couldn't get at their flanks. In practice rarely worked quite so well, as the line was wont to become disjointed on account of terrain, differing rates of progress against the enemy line, etc. leading to the sub-units becoming "uncoupled" from each other and vulnerable to becoming surrounded.

Also, you seem to be confusing the original Philippo-Alexandrian retrained skirmishers' ability to convert into light infantry with just a kit change with some kind of miraculous phalanx-fu maneuverability.

[Dutchhoplite]

And at Issus the Macedonian phalanx got in trouble too but here the Persian mercenary hoplites were aided by the difficult terrain.

By the way, i still believe Chaeronea was won by the Macedonians with better tactics and not with better infantry.

[Phalanx300]

For the people saying Chaeronea is proove that Phalangites would win agaisnt Hoplites if unsupported. If that were true then diffucult and risky maneuvers wouldn't be necesarry.

And I doubt that Phalangites are better at pushing, 8 ranks(generally speaking) of human pushing power, which has prooved in itself to be deadly, vs 5 ranks of individual wooden shafts? The front Hoplites obviously wouldn't want to go forward but point is that they had no choice as they were being pushed.

And at Issus, this prooved that in bad terrain Hoplites are also more maneuvarable which would give them an advantage in such a situation.

But what I think is that an unsupported Macedonian Phalanx vs an unsupported Hoplite Phalanx would in the end lose the fight.

And Phalangites could act in many ways, either in Phalanx or as light infantry, think of Tyre and the Peltastai Makedonikoi, some armour just now with javelins instead of Sarissa.

What is sure I think is that we can all agree that should the Hoplite line become face to face with the Phalangites that the Phalangites would be in deep trouble. Then whats left is the question whether a Hoplite Phalanx would be able to defeat those 5 line wooden shaft pikes.

[seienchin]

I think your problem is that you believe you should use your Hoplitai offensively, which is obviously wrong. I have played quite a few battles on-line, and many times it was my trustworthy Hoplitai that held out long enough for me to hammer the enemy line.

Maion

Hoplites were atack troops. They charged each other and pushed and clubbed till one side lost formation. In EB they are the best Defense troops there is against many types of armies, including the romans, but that isnt what they are supposed to be.
And there is one fact that bothers me: As strong as the Hoplites are against many enemies, they suck against light infantry with AP weapons.

[Watchman]

An axe to the head is rarely good news to anyone. Anyway, to repeat myself, the hoplites were the southern Greeks' main offensive arm *once upon a time* - but things change. As did Greek armies and their challengers. For straight linear offense on level ground the Macedonian-style pikemen were far more potent, whereas the more flexible "barbarian"-Italic-thureophoroi style "jeep" infantry was on the whole better for all-around offensive use especially in rough terrain.

It's as the unit description says; the classic hoplite pattern was getting a bit long on the tooth, but were still perfectly capable heavy spearmen.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Anyway, to repeat myself, the hoplites were the southern Greeks' main offensive arm *once upon a time* - but things change. As did Greek armies and their challengers. For straight linear offense on level ground the Macedonian-style pikemen were far more potent, whereas the more flexible "barbarian"-Italic-thureophoroi style "jeep" infantry was on the whole better for all-around offensive use especially in rough terrain.

It's as the unit description says; the classic hoplite pattern was getting a bit long on the tooth, but were still perfectly capable heavy spearmen.

Totally agree.

An axe to the head is rarely good news to anyone.

hahah sure!